ANANDA MOYEE DEBI Vs. DURGESH NANDINI DEBI
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ananda Moyee Debi
DURGESH NANDINI DEBI
Referred Judgements :-
BINAD LAL PAKRASHI AND ORS. V. KALU PRAMANIK AND ORS.
HEDLOT KHASIA V. KORAN KHASIANI
MA THAN V. MAUNG BA GYAN
RAM KISHUM V. ASHIRBADY
BIMALA PRASAD MUKHERJI V. LAL MONI DEVI
RAMDUTT RAMKISSENDASS V. E.D. SASSOON AND CO.
<RC>ILR(CAL) 1961 2 27;LAWSUIT(CAL) 1960 0 290;</RC>
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
<JGN>KAMALESH CHANDRA SEN</JGN>
ANANDA MOYEE DEBI
DURGESH NANDINI DEBI
<AT>APPEAL FROM APPELLATE DECREE 874 OF 1954,88 OF 1954</AT>
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882 SEC 52;
<ACT>TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882</ACT> <S>S.52</S>
SECTION 52 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT
<ADV>HEM CHANDRA DHAR,MUKTIPADA CHATTERJEE,APURBADHAN MUKHERJEE
THADI CHANDRAYYA VS. VAITLA SEETHANNA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)These two appeals have been heard together as they arise out of one judgment passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan affirming the decision of the Munsif, 1st court, Katwa. The Plaintiff, Durgesh Nandini Devi, brought two suits in the court of the Munsif of Katwa respectively the Title Suit Nos. 30 of 1961 and 29 of 1951. In the former the Defendants were Naba Nalini, Ananda Moyee and others and in the latter, the Defendants were Ambuja Bala, Bhujangini and Kalachand. In both the suits, the Plaintiff sought for a declaration of her eight annas interest in the lands in dispute, viz., those recorded in khatians Nos. 416 and 76 of mouza Sitalgram and for khas possession of her share of lands by partition thereof.
(2.)The facts which are not disputed are stated as follows:
There were two groups of Pal Choudhury Zamindars. One Bholanath Dutta took putni settlement of eight annas interest of the disputed lands along with other lands under the cosharer zamindars, Nrisingha Pal Choudhury and others. Under another set of landlords, viz., Bibhuti Bhusan Pal Choudhury and others, no piitni settlement was given and the disputed lands were under two groups of landlords, viz.', eight annas share of Bhola Nath Dutta as putnidar and others represented by Bibhuti Bhusan Pal Choudhury and others. Against the ex-tenants, Bholanath D'utta and Bibhuti Bhusan Pal Choxidhury brought rent suits and in execution of the decrees thereof put the disputed lands to sale. After the sale, they remained in khas possession as auction purchasers. Thus, while Bholanath Dutta was in khas possession of his eight annas share in the auction-purchased lands, the putni, belonging to him was put to auction sale and auction purchased by the Plaintiff on the 1st of Jaistha, 1343 B.S. Thus, the Plaintiff began to hold the disputed lands in khas along with her cosharers, the zemindars, Bibhuti Bhusan Pal Choudhury and others. The putni was again put up to sale while it was in possession of the Plaintiff and purchased by the enght annas cosharer landlords, Nrisingha Pal Choudhury and others on the 1st of Jaistha, 1345 B.S. The next chain of events are that the present Plaintiff brought a suit before the Munsif, 1st Court, Katwa, on May 15, 1939 for setting aside the putni sale. This suit continued in the court of the 1st Munsif of Katwa till November 15, 1939 and it was returned to the filing pleader for presentation to the proper court on the objection of the Defendants landlords, as to the valuation of the suit. On the following day, the plaint was filed in the court, having proper pecuniary jurisdiction, i.e., November 16, 1939. Ultimately, the Plaintiff obtained a decree and the putni sale was set aside under orders of this Court on December 27, 1947. After she became successful, she went to take possession of the disputed lands but was resisted by the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in Title Suit No. 30 of 1951 and by the Defendants Nos. 1-3 in Title Suit No. 29' of 1951. These Defendants took the plea that they had obtained tenancy right by virtue of leases created in their favour by the auction purchaser of a putni, viz., Nrisingha Pal Choudhury and others. This being the assertion of the Defendants, the present title suits were brought for declaration of her title and for khas possession by partition. It is stated in the plaints that the creation of the tenancies in favour of the principal Defendants was mala fide and as such they had not acquired any title by virtue of any lease. Accordingly, it was averred that she is not bound by the settlement made by the said Pal Choudhuries.
(3.)The defence in both the suits was that the leases were granted by the two groups of Pal Choudhuries bona fide and in due course of management and they are binding on the Plaintiff, after the Plaintiff obtained the decree for setting aside the auction sale, her title has not been disputed and it has been contended that by virtue of the subsequent settlement, she was only entitled to receive rents.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.